no- adoop 1.2.1

> Subject: Re: Jenkins build became unstable: mahout-nightly » Mahout Spark 
> bindings #1728
> From: [email protected]
> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:41:34 -0700
> To: [email protected]
> 
> Are you on hadoop 2.2?
> 
> On Oct 31, 2014, at 9:37 AM, Andrew Palumbo <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Yes this is odd.. To confuse things further, I cleaned out my local maven 
> repo again this 
> morning, and this time built and tested without errors. I'm double 
> checking this again now.  
> 
> 
> > Subject: Re: Jenkins build became unstable: mahout-nightly » Mahout Spark 
> > bindings #1728
> > From: [email protected]
> > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:26:56 -0700
> > To: [email protected]
> > 
> > I think that’s because the Spark in the maven repos is tied to hadoop 2 and 
> > the default in the master is 1.2.1
> > 
> > Sounds like you are the closest to the build machines. Can you try 
> > https://github.com/pferrel/mahout/tree/hadoop-client
> 
> 
> sure I'll try this.
> 
> 
> > 
> > This is a merge of Gokhan’s patch with master. It should default to hadoop 
> > 2 and theoretically should have all artifacts in alignment.
> > 
> > On Oct 30, 2014, at 8:11 PM, Andrew Palumbo <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >> Subject: Re: Jenkins build became unstable: mahout-nightly » Mahout Spark 
> > 
> > I cleaned out my mvn repo, unset SPARK_HOME, and ran 
> > 
> > $ mvn clean install 
> > 
> > from the latest master. now am getting the failure you're talking about:
> > 
> > - ddsvd - naive - q=1 *** FAILED ***
> > org.apache.spark.SparkException: Job aborted due to stage failure: Task 9 
> > in stage 28.0 failed 1 times, most recent failure: Lost task 9.0 in stage 
> > 28.0 (TID 81, localhost): java.io.IOException: PARSING_ERROR(2)
> >       org.xerial.snappy.SnappyNative.throw_error(SnappyNative.java:78)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > bindings #1728
> >> From: [email protected]
> >> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:10:19 -0700
> >> To: [email protected]
> >> 
> >> I took Gokhan’s PR and merged the master with it and compiling with 
> >> 
> >> mvn clean install package -Dhadoop.version=1.2.1
> >> 
> >> I get the same build error as the nightly.
> >> 
> >> Changing back to the master it builds fine. The default hadoop version is 
> >> 1.2.1 in master so I don’t need a profile or CLI options to build for my 
> >> environment.
> >> 
> >> This seems like more than cosmic rays as Dmitriy guessed.
> >> 
> >> On Oct 30, 2014, at 12:41 PM, Dmitriy Lyubimov <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> 
> >> more likely spark thing .
> >> 
> >> the error is while using torrent broadcast. AFAIK that was not default
> >> choice until recently.
> >> 
> >> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Suneel Marthi <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> The nightly builds often due to running on an old machine and the failure
> >>> is also a function of the number of concurrent jobs that are running.  If 
> >>> u
> >>> look at the logs from the failure, it most likely would have failed due to
> >>> a JVM crash (or something similar).  Its the daily builds that we need to
> >>> ensure are not failing.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Andrew Palumbo <[email protected]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> I just built and tested with no problems.  Probably just Jenkins acting
> >>> up.
> >>>> 
> >>>>> Subject: Re: Jenkins build became unstable:  mahout-nightly » Mahout
> >>>> Spark bindings #1728
> >>>>> From: [email protected]
> >>>>> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 09:26:45 -0700
> >>>>> To: [email protected]
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> At first blush this looks unrelated to the stuff I pushed to move to
> >>>> Spark 1.1.0
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> The error is in snappy parsing during some R-like ops
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> I don’t use native snappy myself, is anyone else seeing this or is it
> >>>> just  cosmic rays?
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> On Oct 29, 2014, at 4:43 PM, Apache Jenkins Server <
> >>>> [email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> See <
> >>>> 
> >>> https://builds.apache.org/job/mahout-nightly/org.apache.mahout$mahout-spark_2.10/1728/
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>> 
> >> 
> >                                       
> > 
>                                         
> 
                                          

Reply via email to